Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Guide To The Bible]

I would say the Church went wrong just like ancient Israel went wrong. Israel was captive in Babylon, and the Church is captive in spiritual Babylon.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

Brilliant Post!!! Well said.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Jesus was clear about how the leaders of His Church were to lead. Mark 10:42-44: “And Jesus called them to him and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all."

And in His condemnation of the Chief Priests, Pharisees, and scribes (in Matthew 23:1-12) Jesus indicated what our leaders were to avoid doing: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

How did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the early Church? I can tell you why-- because of sin. It is human hubris and ego to desire power and public prestige. The governments and military in Greek and Roman lands were quite hierarchical in their power structure, and their cultures had a clear caste system. Once the Apostles were gone and the churches started to become larger and more organized, the Church co-opted some of these systems and turned it into clericalism. This was an early form of revisionism, following the culture rather than the words of Jesus.

John R.W Stott on the scandal of clericalism: “It is only against the backdrop of the equality and unity of the people of God that the real scandal of clericalism may be seen. What clericalism also does, by concentrating power and privilege in the hands of the clergy, is at least to obscure and at worst to annul the essential oneness of the people of God. Extreme forms of clericalism dare to reintroduce the notion of privilege into the only human community in which it has been abolished. Where Christ has made out of two one, the clerical mind makes two again, the one higher and the other lower, the one active and the other passive, the one really important because vital to the life of the church, the other not vital and therefore less important. I do not hesitate to say that to interpret the church in terms of a privileged clerical caste or hierarchical structure is to destroy the New Testament doctrine of the church.”

I agree but this last bit: "I do not hesitate to say that to interpret the church in terms of a privileged clerical caste or hierarchical structure is to destroy the New Testament doctrine of the church." Sounds contary unless by 'doctrine he means the doctrine of the Orthodox church and the popes who use lots to select leaders.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I think we are not answering any questions of an assertion made against the claim that the acknowledged leader of the Apostles was impatient and needed to only wait maybe three more weeks to get Saul's conversion as an alleged replacement of the vacancy of Judas seat. That they were told to wait in Jerusalem for the Comforter is not being denied. What is being denied is

1. that command meant they could do nothing until then and
   
2. that had Peter been more compliant/patient his concern would have been addressed in short order by Saul's conversion.

Those points would be required to be assumed valid if the conclusion made is to be accepted by anyone simply saying "well it reads that way to me". Saying that is how it reads to me doesn't cut it because to my knowledge no one of any authority or qualification to make such claims has ever made them. Which is why I keep asking who besides the OP has, what authority does the claim have. If the answer is your authority and some unstated qualification for defying so many qualified that would dispute any merit to it, you should pardon the rest of us for accepting that as anything more than an opinion. You are entitled to an opinion and freely express it. To defend it requires more work than simply, "well it reads that way to me".

Where did God tell them He would replace Judas for them?
Why replace anyone who dies for that matter since God did not tell them to do that either?

Was Saint Paul ever accepted as or even made a claim himself as a replacement for Judas? (that is rhetorical the answer is no)
Other than having to deal with stubborn headed Apostle, was Saint Peter punished for not waiting? (another rhetorical)
Was Saint Matthias Apostleship ever devalued because of the alleged mistake by Saint Peter besides anyone not posting in this thread? (again likely rhetorical as I believe we have gone 17 plus pages without anyone posting links to serious theologians making similar assertions or there being any made besides those from people in this thread for that matter)
Same rhetorical question and comment on the absurdly short timeline that is allegedly the way we all should read it - though no one else ever did apparently?

Well I was tired last night but I should have this licked soon.

It only point two that is being addresses in the OP:

'that had Peter been more compliant/patient his concern would have been addressed in short order by Saul's conversion.'

So lets concentrate on that and if you keep making rhetorical questions then it's not going to leave much room for discussion now is it? (that's rhetorical btw ).

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Forgive me for inserting myself in this, but hadn't the apostles received the Holy Spirit? See Acts 1:20 and John 20:22. If Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit (and He did), then these men were being led by the Spirit. As far as casting lots, do we not read in Proverbs (16:33 KJV) “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD?" Now if casting lots in evil, then why would He say it was good in the OT?

These are good points but not valid because lots were for use in the physical temple, we are now the temple and the Holy Spirit is or Guide not casting lots.

Act 1:20 was addressed Jesus Himself when He selected Paul.

John 20:22 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

However nothing happened beyond that, all the gifts of the Holy Spirit did not manifest till they were actually received it at Pentecost. This was a foreshadow of what was to come, a prophetic act.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well I was tired last night but I should have this licked soon.

It only point two that is being addresses in the OP:

'that had Peter been more compliant/patient his concern would have been addressed in short order by Saul's conversion.'

So lets concentrate on that and if you keep making rhetorical questions then it's not going to leave much room for discussion now is it? (that's rhetorical btw ).

Fine. and accepted , no more rhetorical.

Still 18 pages in and all we have for support of the "short order" is like a Spirit revealed "reads that way to me". Which at best without more objective endorsement of that view leaves us unable to deny one holds that belief as true and unable to say it is compatible, for many of the reasons already stated, with any other recognized authority on the matter. Which rather makes this at least appear as a not just an opinion, but one that refutes eons of people way smarter than me attempting to create a timeline for Saint Paul's ministry and nada among them agreeing that it started in "short order". As such and if there is nothing more in the way of support, we can agree to disagree and this remains just an opinion to me.

The objection to Saint Peter doing something that he should have simply prayed and waited for, was supported at least in part with a declaration that he was told to "wait for the Spirit" in Jerusalem and that also meant do nothing - as in do not replace the empty seat until then. If that has subsequently been retracted I missed that or maybe the above was your dropping of this claim, not sure. If not then I still take issue with adding to His Words in giving that command about where they were to wait for Him.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

The fact is that we all are sin free! All we are suppose to do is to love one another; John 13:34, 2 Timothy 3:15 & Ephesians 2:8.
Now; how is the church going to extract money from the masses with a belief like that? It's not; enter sin, and we have death and power. I believe that it all began to go wrong for the church; when the church chose your sin over Christ's love, as the basis for salvation.

Yes but that didn't happen till after the day of Pentecost. It was all down hill from there But seriously the true church of Jesus and the Holy Spirit has done amazingly well too. As Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is like a woman (The Holy Spirit) who took three large measures (3000 years) of dough (the world) and mixed in yeast (Christian's) until it worked all the way through.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

hmn the crack in the pavement that has moved laterally thru compromise ...

I don't know what you mean?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Fine. and accepted , no more rhetorical.

Still 18 pages in and all we have for support of the "short order" is like a Spirit revealed "reads that way to me". Which at best without more objective endorsement of that view leaves us unable to deny one holds that belief as true and unable to say it is compatible, for many of the reasons already stated, with any other recognized authority on the matter. Which rather makes this at least appear as a not just an opinion, but one that refutes eons of people way smarter than me attempting to create a timeline for Saint Paul's ministry and nada among them agreeing that it started in "short order". As such and if there is nothing more in the way of support, we can agree to disagree and this remains just an opinion to me.

The objection to Saint Peter doing something that he should have simply prayed and waited for, was supported at least in part with a declaration that he was told to "wait for the Spirit" in Jerusalem and that also meant do nothing - as in do not replace the empty seat until then. If that has subsequently been retracted I missed that or maybe the above was your dropping of this claim, not sure. If not then I still take issue with adding to His Words in giving that command about where they were to wait for Him.

Focus on the lots cast please. That is the OP. This matters because although Peter and all of them never understood it was problem either, it is actually a man made lottery system that's open to corruption. With each successive election of pope there is gradual creeping towards selecting from a group that can become increasingly worldly rather than godly. It gradually pushes out God from the selection process and increasingly so over the years that it carry's on for. That is why the Catholic Church is so corrupt. With all there wealth that should be given to help the poor. All the sex scandles. All the inquisitions etc etc..

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The casting of lots involves the randomized selection of a name, and was legitimately used by the Apostles to replace Judas.

1. The Roman Catholic Pope is not selected by lottery. He is rather elected by a conclave of the College of Cardinals (all Cardinals under the age of 75 IIRC can vote; those above a certain age can debate but not vote). Before the establishment of the College of Cardinals, the Roman bishop was, as far as I know, elected by the Holy Synod of bishops of his church, in the manner of most Orthodox churches.
2. The Orthodox Patriarchs, with the exception of the Coptic Pope, who is alone chosen via the casting of lots, are elected in a similiar manner to the election of the Roman Pope, but you cannot claim any gradual degeneration or increase in worldliness on their part. Nor can you accuse them of conducting inquisitions, nor has there been any widespread sex scandal in the Orthodox church (I am aware of only two instances of paedophilia involving Orthodox priests, and one of them involved an ex-priest who had previously been defrocked and excommunicated; we have a very good record considering we are the world's second largest church).
3. There has furthermore been no Inquisition in the RCC since the early 19th century.
4. Roman Catholics donate substantially more to charity both in total volume and per capita than either Protestants or, alas, Orthodox. The claim that the Catholic Church is hoarding huge sums of cash does not hold water; they spend much more of their holdings on charitable works than any other denomination, and also have much more extensive and elaborate charitable infrastructure than anyone else, by huge margins. No other church even comes close. If the selection of a church was to be made purely on the basis of that church's philanthropy, the Roman Catholic Church would be the one I would have to choose.

In summary, the Pope of Rome is not elected the same way St. Matthias is (the Coptic Pope of Alexandria is); you cannot blame the system of election of the Pope of Rome for the various criticisms you might otherwise have of the Roman Church due to the fact that Orthodox patriarchs are elected in the same way, and have not engaged in those actions, and furthermore, your criticisms of the Roman church are largely based either on false assumptions or on historical events which have been corrected.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

[staff edited]

Please do not copy-paste previous replies written to one member into a reply to another member, but address each member individually.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

[staff edited]
Yeah all the Satanic work of the Church you would think the culture/media would love us, for some reason Satan apparently likes to work against himself, at least in the minds of some.

Drawing lots is probably a better translations IMO. Each get equal lots in bag, 11 guys drawing, one of two equally suitable men vetted from many disciples gets elected to fill the empty seat. Where is the problem in removing human input into determining that outcome?
Also a better way to maintain unity of the group of 12, no group favoring one or the other is defeated by the act of others and neither disciple is offended by the act of anyone. Personal opinions and feelings totally removed from the process. Who would not want that among leaders that absolutely needed to get along together?

Are we suggesting Barnabas was the Spirit's choice and God was unable to effect that in a random draw?
Or are we actually back to it should have been neither because it was suppose to be Saint Paul?(which I have heard no claim ever until this thread)

Hardly a lottery if God can be granted ability to influence a random event. But either way it would also be a very Jewish custom allowing God's Providence so am not sure what the point is. Is the suggestion this is gambling?

I mean I know Protestors hate it when our party buses from Church pass them on their way to the Casino, and am sure they hate to see each other as they pull up separately to the Casino parking lot, but such an objection to drawing lots is taking such behavior to a new level. Just like my Sunday school teacher never drank or played cards and no one danced like those wicked Catholics.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

[staff edited]

No, that is incorrect. The Roman Pope is elected, by the votes of the members of the College of Cardinals.

The only leader of any of the traditional churches who has historically and until the present been selected by lot in the manner of St. Matthias is the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, in Egypt. And the Coptic church has never had an Inquisition, or a sex scandal, or been subject to the Roman Pope.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Basically, @Guide To The Bible, your assertion that the election of St. Matthias was some form of error appears to stem from a belief that the Roman Catholics choose their Pope that way. But this is untrue. What actually happens is that the College of Cardinals, who are Roman Catholic bishops who have been elevated to the Cardinalate and been made electors of the Pope, meet in the Sistine Chapel and debate who should become the Pope (almost invariably, one of their own number). They then vote, and may vote repeatedly until someone wins.

Now, the Coptic Pope is chosen by the casting of lots. Given that the Coptic church never conducted an Inquisition or the other misdeeds of the medieval Roman Catholic church, one could be tempted to say that the Roman church ought to use the Coptic system, the system used to elect St. Matthias, instead of their own.

But that might also be misleading. Because the Patriarchs of all of the other Orthodox churches, who have never waged Inquisitions or had systemic problems with paedophilia, are elected by holy synods of those churches similiar to the process used by Rome.

The only minor difference is that with the Orthodox churches, all the bishops, instead of just the highest ranking ones, vote on who should be the Patriarch. With the exception of the bishops of some churches we call autonomous churches, like the Latvian Orthodox Church or the Church of Finland, who elect their autonomous archbishop (who is then approved by the Holy Synod or the Patriarch of the larger autocephalous church, like the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople or the Moscow Patriarchate, of which they are a member).

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Basically, @Guide To The Bible, your assertion that the election of St. Matthias was some form of error appears to stem from a belief that the Roman Catholics choose their Pope that way. But this is untrue. What actually happens is that the College of Cardinals, who are Roman Catholic bishops who have been elevated to the Cardinalate and been made electors of the Pope, meet in the Sistine Chapel and debate who should become the Pope (almost invariably, one of their own number). They then vote, and may vote repeatedly until someone wins.

Now, the Coptic Pope is chosen by the casting of lots. Given that the Coptic church never conducted an Inquisition or the other misdeeds of the medieval Roman Catholoc church, one could be tempted to say that the

So in effect what your saying is that God does not get involved in this selection process, nor Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It's just for the boys to decide who gets in or not. Great system that. Sound remarkably like the Mason's system.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Please do not copy-paste previous replies written to one member into a reply to another member, but address each member individually.

Sorry about that if i did.

 

[Meowzltov]

[staff edited]
A democratic vote by the Cardinals is nothing at all like throwing dice or pulling the short straw. Are you kidding me?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Yeah all the Satanic work of the Church you would think the culture/media would love us, for some reason Satan apparently likes to work against himself, at least in the minds of some.

Drawing lots is probably a better translations IMO. Each get equal lots in bag, 11 guys drawing, one of two equally suitable men vetted from many disciples gets elected to fill the empty seat. Where is the problem in removing human input into determining that outcome?
Also a better way to maintain unity of the group of 12, no group favoring one or the other is defeated by the act of others and neither disciple is offended by the act of anyone. Personal opinions and feelings totally removed from the process. Who would not want that among leaders that absolutely needed to get along together?

Are we suggesting Barnabas was the Spirit's choice and God was unable to effect that in a random draw?
Or are we actually back to it should have been neither because it was suppose to be Saint Paul?(which I have heard no claim ever until this thread)

Hardly a lottery if God can be granted ability to influence a random event. But either way it would also be a very Jewish custom allowing God's Providence so am not sure what the point is. Is the suggestion this is gambling?

I mean I know Protestors hate it when our party buses from Church pass them on their way to the Casino, and am sure they hate to see each other as they pull up separately to the Casino parking lot, but such an objection to drawing lots is taking such behavior to a new level. Just like my Sunday school teacher never drank or played cards and no one danced like those wicked Catholics.

You're missing the point. I'm not being anti-Catholic although I do see them as the Laodicean Church. I'm repeating my self i know but somehow it seems necessary. It's the cast of lots that is wrong.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

A democratic vote by the Cardinals is nothing at all like throwing dice or pulling the short straw. Are you kidding me?

Perhaps you would like to put yourself up for election? See how far that gets you? Jesus' Kingdom accepts you not only as you are but also immediately elevates you position above the angels and allows you to talk with Him in person whenever you like.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Sorry about that if i did.

The fact is that we all have no sin. All we are suppose to do is love one another; John 13:34, 2 Timothy 3:15. Ephesians 2:8 & John 1:29.
Now, how is the church going to extract money from the masses with a belief like that. It's not; enter sin, and we have death and power. I believe that it all started to go wrong for the church when the church chose your sin over Christ's love, as the basis for salvation.

 

[Meowzltov]

You're missing the point. I'm not being anti-Catholic although I do see them as the Laodicean Church. I'm repeating my self i know but somehow it seems necessary. It's the cast of lots that is wrong.

Our cardinals do NOT cast lots. When has voting EVER been casting lots?